Appeal No. 95-3675
Application No. 08/025,822
to thereby write thereinto nonvolatile information which is
representative of the corresponding volatile information written
in the volatile control means.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Logie 4,924,278 May 8, 1990
Claims 3 through 7, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
' 103 as unpatentable over Logie.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
In applying Logie to independent claim 3, the examiner
identifies, in Figure 4 of Logie, a storage means 38, injecting
means 55 and 24, supplying means 22, volatile control means 25
and a random-access potential setting means 28. The examiner
contends that it would have been “obvious that the signals are
applied to the volatile control means on a random access basis to
write volatile information into the volatile control means”
[answer-page 3].
The examiner’s position, incorrect in our view, is that the
instant claim language is so broad as to encompass that which is
taught by Logie.
First, appellants cite In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193,
29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994) for the proposition that 35
U.S.C. ' 112, sixth paragraph, requires that the means-plus-
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007